Re: BRIN range operator class
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Emre Hasegeli <emre@hasegeli.com>
Cc: Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>,
PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2015-05-05T21:22:22Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Can you please explain what is the purpose of patch 07? I'm not sure I understand; are we trying to avoid having to add pg_amproc entries for these operators and instead piggy-back on btree opclass definitions? Not too much in love with that idea; I see that there is less tedium in that the brin opclass definition is simpler. One disadvantage is a 3x increase in the number of syscache lookups to get the function you need, unless I'm reading things wrong. Maybe this is not performance critical. Anyway I tried applying it on isolation, and found that it fails the assertion that tests the "union" support proc in brininsert. That doesn't seem okay. I mean, it's okay not to run the test for the inclusion opclasses, but why does it now fail in minmax which was previously passing? Couldn't figure it out. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Commits
-
Refactor per-page logic common to all redo routines to a new function.
- f8f4227976a2 9.5.0 cited
-
Reduce use of heavyweight locking inside hash AM.
- 76837c1507cb 9.3.0 cited
-
Scan the buffer pool just once, not once per fork, during relation drop.
- ece01aae4792 9.2.0 cited
-
Major patch from Thomas Lockhart <Thomas.G.Lockhart@jpl.nasa.gov>
- 9e2a87b62db8 7.1.1 cited